Trial reportBJS open2020
Quality of life and patient satisfaction after implant-based breast reconstruction with or without acellular dermal matrix: randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02061527 (Immediate Breast Reconstruction With or Without the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Immediate Breast Reconstruction With or Without the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Study
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Statistical fragility of outcomes in acellular dermal matrix literature: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy With and Without Acellular Dermal Matrix Among Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Optimizing Aesthetic Results in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Patient Factors, Surgical Techniques, and Adjunctive Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advocating for optimal surgical approaches in prepectoral implant breast reconstruction.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes 3 and 18 months after mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction in the UK Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of Postoperative Breast Asymmetry Using Vectra 3D Imaging in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The use of dermal templates in dermato-surgery and patient perspectives.Dermatology reports · 2024Article
- Does the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) in women undergoing pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction increase operative success versus non-use of ADM in the same setting? A systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- BREAST-Q-Based Survey of the Satisfaction and Health Status of Patients with Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Article
- Trends and issues in clinical research on satisfaction and quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction: a 5-year scoping review.International journal of clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Wound Healing after Acellular Dermal Substitute Positioning in Dermato-Oncological Surgery: A Prospective Comparative Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Should Acellular Dermal Matrices Be Used for Implant-based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy? Clinical Recommendation Based on the GRADE Approach.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Review
- Use of Antibiotic-impregnated Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) Plates for Prevention of Periprosthetic Infection in Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction: Pre-BRA prospective multicentre cohort study.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcellular dermal matrix (ADM) in implant-based breast reconstructions (IBBRs) aims to improve cosmetic outcomes. Six-month data are presented from a randomized trial evaluating whether IBBR with ADM provides higher health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional IBBR without ADM.
methodsIn this multicentre open-label RCT, women with breast cancer planned for mastectomy with immediate IBBR in four centres in Sweden and one in the UK were allocated randomly (1 : 1) to IBBR with or without ADM. HRQoL, a secondary endpoint, was measured as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using three validated instruments (EORTC-QLQC30, QLQ-BR23, QLQ-BRR26) at baseline and 6 months.
resultsBetween 24 April 2014 and 10 May 2017, 135 women were enrolled, of whom 64 with and 65 without ADM were included in the final analysis. At 6 months after surgery, patient-reported HRQoL, measured with generic QLQ-C30 or breast cancer-specific QLQ-BR23, was similar between the groups. For patient-reported cosmetic outcomes, two subscale items, cosmetic outcome (8·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·46 to 16·86; P = 0·041) and problems finding a well-fitting bra (-13·21, -25·54 to -0·89; P = 0·038), yielded higher scores in favour of ADM, corresponding to a small to moderate clinical difference. None of the other 27 domains measured showed any significant differences between the groups.
conclusionIBBR with ADM was not superior in terms of higher levels of HRQoL compared with IBBR without ADM. Although two subscale items of patient-reported cosmetic outcomes favoured ADM, the majority of cosmetic items showed no significant difference between treatments at 6 months. Registration number: NCT02061527 ( www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.